Immaculate Constellation - Alleged USAP focused on UAP identification and crash-retrieval

Weirdly, this is the only spike I could find on Google Trends, prior to this month. The term searched Immaculate Constellation in the US, from 1/1/22 to 1/1/24 with absolutely no interest, apart from a sudden spike 27th November to 3rd December 2022, and again no interest after that date.

Given very recent developments, why would this not be fascinating? I have been actively interested in astronomy for over 30 years, and I've never heard anyone use the term Immaculate Constellation. It's meaningless.

I'm a simple kind of guy, but I can't think of a good reason, 2 years ago, for multiple sources suddenly searching this particular meaningless combination of words via Google.

Google Trends.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P.S. "share this before it goes away" is something conspiracy theorists like to do. It gives the messages a sort of cloak-and-dagger resistance vibe. In reality, the information hardly ever goes away except for the normal reasons, "the government" couldn't care less about those people.
 
Steve Collyer said:
Can anyone validate this? Absolutely fascinating if it proves to hold water.
Click to expand...
I just checked and for me the graph still shows a result.

graph.jpg


Not totally sure why though.
A possible explanation could be that it depends on which Google data center handles your request. Keeping these huge amounts of data in sync is not an easy task and it might be that the European data center that handled my request did not yet have the information about the newest search queries from the US. Therefor as @Mendel explained the newest peak was not as high as in the US and as a result the older peaks were not yet scaled below the 1% threshold. If that is the case the older peak will probably also disappear for me over time.
 
Steve Collyer said:
Can anyone validate this? Absolutely fascinating if it proves to hold water.
Click to expand...

As shown above, it just seems to be matter of scale with @Ridcully finding that there was a spike, although a much smaller one, in 10/2022. The more important question to me is why? It's a nonsense phrase, so if people were searching for it in '22, even a small group, someone before Shellenberger's source was using the term and this isn't a new story.

If we want to get conspiratorial, it's not Google hiding some old search results which doesn't even make sense, it's that the same old cabal of UFOlogists is rehashing and recycling a previous story.
 
To follow up on Mendel's post #39,
External Quote:

Google Trends doesn't show actual search volume numbers. Instead, they're providing a relative scale.
A measurement of 0 means no interest and 100 means max popularity.
For example, a measure of 25 would mean the term had one-quarter of the search volume on that date compared to its peak popularity.
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/google-trends-search-volume

So, looking at searches for a term like "Immaculate Constellation," you'd expect for most of history there would be nobody searching for that, but possibly a typo of "Immaculate Conception" or "Immaculate Reception," the latter being a thing that happened in American football, might happen. If there was just one typo search, and later there were three, you'd get a visible blip up about a third of the way, then nothing, then it would go all the way to 100, the max number of searches seen so far, where the three searches happen. (1 and 3 are illustrative, I don't know what they numbers actually were, Google hides that.)

Then somebody uses the term intentionally, in a hot news story (hot-ish, at least) and suddenly you might see thousands of searches. The previous 1-3 searches no longer make a visible blip, in the new scale they are too small to be seen, and people who do not understand how the graph they are looking at works think evil-doers are hiding something. (To be fair to the people, Google should explain clearly what the axes on their graph represent -- the purpose of a graph is to help convey information, not obfuscate it.)
 
jdog said:
Google Trends is largely useless without some sort of comparison.
Click to expand...
Random pairs of words show random spikes in random locations. Are these all secret projects in Iraq or Virginia?
2024-10-12_09-05-52.jpg


2024-10-12_09-07-15.jpg


Did someone in Iraq actually deliberately search for "tangerine scorpion"
 
So a weird property of the Google search function as it relates to the Google trend history algorithm?
 
JMartJr said:
(To be fair to the people, Google should explain clearly what the axes on their graph represent -- the purpose of a graph is to help convey information, not obfuscate it.)
Click to expand...
Google does, people simply don't click the question mark that is right there.
 
UFO hype comes in cycles because UFOlogists love to pick old news back up again.

Someone had a crackpot idea in April which gained a small amount of traction but fizzled, then someone with more clout picks it up in October and it balloons. That's just how this works.
 
Also a major note on the term that has largely been left out. So, theoretically speaking, yes, "Immaculate Constellation" follows proper naming conventions, in its forming and simple existence of those words. That is where it ends though.
There is an incongruity itself here in that specifically, being used as a program name. An overwhelming majority of things which use "codenames" at all, are in fact, randomized and selected based off computer systems. I'm not sure if NSA makes the processes for them but there's some similarity to the types of cyphering stuff they do that looks for "true" randomness. For truly restricted stuff too before those tech developments, usually the codenames weren't made up still, there was someone with a little rotating device with a bunch of pre-selected terms they'd randomly reach in and pick from. CIA had a secretary type lady hired for a very long time who did most of those for them, not sure what all else she did if anything.

So, the specific incongruity here, is that codename being selected for this SAP. You're not participating in writing a murder mystery, you're not dribbling little clues around to lead people to what it really is - you seek to do the exact opposite.
So there are 2 issue points within this incongruity -
1. It is astronomically unlikely, singularly, either of these terms were randomly selected for this program - it's multiple dimensions worth of unlikeness for both to be randomly selected for this program.
2. Further, if it did so happen to be randomly selected, it is unlikely it would be approved. The CI and OPSEC staff for sure would cry up a storm that you basically made your codename a riddle to uncover your secret program. Not to mention it makes little actual sense outside conspiracy logic. This is of course, holding the same assumption that - not only do these people have the jobs they have (that dictates this level of knowledge and understanding) but apparently are even craftier than the standing fields.
 
Note: Started composing this a while ago, came back and found @Tezcatlipoca's post had covered some of the same ground.

Just a quick thought- and too tenuous to be evidence for or against there being a USAP called "Immaculate Constellation"-
-but is that a title that would likely be approved?

The words "immaculate" and "constellation" are in everyday use, but "Immaculate Constellation" has strong echoes of "Immaculate Conception". In this sensitive day and age, might that be seen as irreligious or offensive by some, and therefore not suitable for formal use?

I wondered if those in charge of, e.g. Special Access Programs, get to choose the title. We know US operations titles sometimes allude to the intended aims- e.g., Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom- but presumably those operations were planned under more discrete titles for security reasons.

There is some (inconclusive) discussion on how US interests select codewords/ nicknames on this thread
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/operation-paperclip-etymology.13168/, Operation Paperclip etymology.

(In UK military use, codewords are always one word. Active ops have a codeword title. Nicknames are two words. Most exercises have a nickname title, which might indicate the nature of the exercise (like U.S. operations titles, e.g. Desert Storm).
For a codeword, a word is chosen at random from a limited dictionary and given a human review to exclude terms that might coincidentally be connected to the (e.g.) operation, offensive or inappropriate terms, and terms that might invite ridicule.)

(Added after a bit of searching):

Ah, found this, which might be useful- don't know how reliable the website is, but this article seems on the level to me:
From The Warzone website, Tim McMillan, 01 December 2019
(link) "Here Is How The Pentagon Comes Up With Code Words And Secret Project Nicknames":

External Quote:
shortly after the close of the Vietnam War, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) decided it was time to formalize the use of code words and nicknames by unveiling the Code Word Nickname and Exercise Term System, colloquially known as NICKA.

...For the Department of Defense (DoD), NICKA is both a set of policies governing the selection of defense monikers and a military-wide computer system that archives and prevents duplication of terms.
Important to note, NICKA is primarily used for Department of Defense-related endeavors. Many operations or programs emerging from within the intelligence community use their own separate naming system.

For example, the Central Intelligence Agency uses the Cryptonym system for developing code words and names. It is also worth noting that the National Security Agency (NSA), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) all use the NICKA system
NICKA outlines three distinctive types of monikers that can be used within the DoD:
-Code Words
-Nicknames
-Exercise Terms
(My emphasis).

The author gives the example of "Oxcart" as the early codeword for the SR-71, and "Tacit Blue" as a NICKA-derived nickname for the (then highly secret) Northrop stealth demonstrator aircraft, both of which hide the meaning of the program.
However, he also mentions that "incorrect" codewords/ nicknames are sometimes generated outside of the NICKA system.

What might be relevant to us, McMillan writes
External Quote:
NICKA guidelines stipulate nicknames are not required, but can be assigned to actual real-world events, projects, or activities. One caveat to "not required" being with Special Access Programs, which are required to have an unclassified nickname assigned to them.
To cut a long story short, if the hypothetical people in charge of "Immaculate Constellation" had used NICKA, it seems unlikely that title would have been generated or would be used.

It's easy to think up convincing-sounding codewords and nicknames, even if they wouldn't really be NICKA products:
The 1981 film Escape From New York referred to special forces units 'Black Light' and 'Texas Thunder', William Gibson's Neuromancer gave us 'Screaming Fist', a compromised US raid /cyber attack on a computer nexus in Kirensk, Siberia.
David Mace's 1986 military SF novel Fire Lance tells us a US program, 'Saver Wise', helped fund a new generation of high-tech battleships.
 
Steve Collyer said:
https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533?hl=en

External Quote:

How is Google Trends data normalized?

Google Trends normalizes search data to make comparisons between terms easier. Search results are normalized to the time and location of a query by the following process:
  • Each data point is divided by the total searches of the geography and time range it represents to compare relative popularity. Otherwise, places with the most search volume would always be ranked highest.
  • The resulting numbers are then scaled on a range of 0 to 100 based on a topic's proportion to all searches on all topics.
  • Different regions that show the same search interest for a term don't always have the same total search volumes.

Click to expand...

So we can't tell the difference between a one in a sea of zeroes (a.k.a. noise) and a million in a sea of thousands (a.k.a. signal).
That's off-the-scale useless.
 
John J. said:
To cut a long story short, if the hypothetical people in charge of "Immaculate Constellation" had used NICKA, it seems unlikely that title would have been generated or would be used.
Click to expand...
I've been labeling your post a "win", which I usually reserve for contributions that solve something. That's because it puts Mick's earlier information in context:
Mick West said:
Article:
Department of Defense spokesperson Sue Gough denied records of the alleged program in a statement to NewsNation Tuesday evening.

"The Department of Defense has no record, present or historical, of any type of SAP called 'IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION,'" she wrote.
Click to expand...
This means "Immaculate Constellation" is not in NICKA, which means nobody would be using that name.

(I guess it's possible that "Immaculate Constellation" refers to something other than a SAP.)
 
Mick West said:
Article:
Department of Defense spokesperson Sue Gough denied records of the alleged program in a statement to NewsNation Tuesday evening.

"The Department of Defense has no record, present or historical, of any type of SAP called 'IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION,'" she wrote.
Click to expand...

Here are two reasons why the name Immculate Constellation would never be used as a code name.

First, definitions for the word immaculate includes phrases such as: "Free from fault or error" and "Impeccably clean, spotless". Nobody would ever give a program those names because of the implication that the program is and will always be free from fault or error and will always be "clean". Jinxing your program from day one, because there will always be problems somewhere sometime.

Second, If someone was foolish enough to use that as the first word they would never get approval to follow it with ANY word that begins with the letters c-o-n because of the obvious likelihood that it would be mistaken for "immaculate conception" and the endless religious backlash that would cause.

There was some US operation in the middle-east that was going to be named "Infinite Justice" until someone pointed out that the Koran says that infinite justice comes only from Allah. So they changed the name to remove the implication that the US is God which could have caused backlash from Moslem countries.
 
MapperGuy said:
Second, If someone was foolish enough to use that as the first word they would never get approval to follow it with ANY word that begins with the letters c-o-n because of the obvious likelihood that it would be mistaken for "immaculate conception" and the endless religious backlash that would cause.
Click to expand...
When dealing with Muslims, that might matter, but if you recall, we still refer to a particular football move as a "Hail Mary" pass. ;)
 
It might, because the relationship between Catholics and "Hail Mary" is somewhat different than some of the sensitivities Muslims seem to have. I don't really see the average Catholic getting up in arms over what is treated as fairly common phrase in American English. I wouldn't. It entered the vernacular through the heavily Catholic Notre Dame football team using the term for a desperation pass. That's already a pretty trivial thing to invoke a prayer for and...the call was coming from inside the house, so to speak.

The US did run Operation Vengeance. That's an inherently blasphemous name to Christians. "'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord." and so on. I'm not sure anyone batted an eye.
 
John J. said:
Note: Started composing this a while ago, came back and found @Tezcatlipoca's post had covered some of the same ground.

Just a quick thought- and too tenuous to be evidence for or against there being a USAP called "Immaculate Constellation"-
-but is that a title that would likely be approved?

The words "immaculate" and "constellation" are in everyday use, but "Immaculate Constellation" has strong echoes of "Immaculate Conception". In this sensitive day and age, might that be seen as irreligious or offensive by some, and therefore not suitable for formal use?

I wondered if those in charge of, e.g. Special Access Programs, get to choose the title. We know US operations titles sometimes allude to the intended aims- e.g., Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom- but presumably those operations were planned under more discrete titles for security reasons.

There is some (inconclusive) discussion on how US interests select codewords/ nicknames on this thread
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/operation-paperclip-etymology.13168/, Operation Paperclip etymology.

(In UK military use, codewords are always one word. Active ops have a codeword title. Nicknames are two words. Most exercises have a nickname title, which might indicate the nature of the exercise (like U.S. operations titles, e.g. Desert Storm).
For a codeword, a word is chosen at random from a limited dictionary and given a human review to exclude terms that might coincidentally be connected to the (e.g.) operation, offensive or inappropriate terms, and terms that might invite ridicule.)

(Added after a bit of searching):

Ah, found this, which might be useful- don't know how reliable the website is, but this article seems on the level to me:
From The Warzone website, Tim McMillan, 01 December 2019
(link) "Here Is How The Pentagon Comes Up With Code Words And Secret Project Nicknames":

External Quote:
shortly after the close of the Vietnam War, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) decided it was time to formalize the use of code words and nicknames by unveiling the Code Word Nickname and Exercise Term System, colloquially known as NICKA.

...For the Department of Defense (DoD), NICKA is both a set of policies governing the selection of defense monikers and a military-wide computer system that archives and prevents duplication of terms.
Important to note, NICKA is primarily used for Department of Defense-related endeavors. Many operations or programs emerging from within the intelligence community use their own separate naming system.

For example, the Central Intelligence Agency uses the Cryptonym system for developing code words and names. It is also worth noting that the National Security Agency (NSA), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) all use the NICKA system
NICKA outlines three distinctive types of monikers that can be used within the DoD:
-Code Words
-Nicknames
-Exercise Terms
(My emphasis).

The author gives the example of "Oxcart" as the early codeword for the SR-71, and "Tacit Blue" as a NICKA-derived nickname for the (then highly secret) Northrop stealth demonstrator aircraft, both of which hide the meaning of the program.
However, he also mentions that "incorrect" codewords/ nicknames are sometimes generated outside of the NICKA system.

What might be relevant to us, McMillan writes
External Quote:
NICKA guidelines stipulate nicknames are not required, but can be assigned to actual real-world events, projects, or activities. One caveat to "not required" being with Special Access Programs, which are required to have an unclassified nickname assigned to them.
To cut a long story short, if the hypothetical people in charge of "Immaculate Constellation" had used NICKA, it seems unlikely that title would have been generated or would be used.

It's easy to think up convincing-sounding codewords and nicknames, even if they wouldn't really be NICKA products:
The 1981 film Escape From New York referred to special forces units 'Black Light' and 'Texas Thunder', William Gibson's Neuromancer gave us 'Screaming Fist', a compromised US raid /cyber attack on a computer nexus in Kirensk, Siberia.
David Mace's 1986 military SF novel Fire Lance tells us a US program, 'Saver Wise', helped fund a new generation of high-tech battleships.
Click to expand...
Only covering this since we don't know *exactly* how the codename was selected.

For CIA, what they have is called "Digraphs" and "Trigraphs", digraphs (like Oxcart) are most commonly used. McMillan represents how they work a bit incorrectly.
How these work is the first 2 or 3 letters are the identifier that can be pronounced together (hence the name), while there will be a second term selected. As an extension of the first 2 though, if feasible, it may be formulated to sound like a real word. The digraph/trigraph portion of a cryptonym, similarly to the first word in NICKA selections, are based upon rotating temporary ones for specific offices or geographical areas etc. As an example, a lot of old soviet operations throughout the 60s-ish used the digraph AE. A great example of how those can roll sometimes is AERODYNAMIC. AE is the digraph - DYNAMIC is the rest. "RO" is not an extension of the digraph or trigraph but rather inserted to add further disruptive elements to processing related to those names. Eg if you're assessing the terms, you may incorrectly identify this as two parts "AERO" "DYNAMC", instead of three parts "AE" ("RO") "DYNAMIC". Or another simpler example was the series of CARETIRE cryptonyms, CA/RETIRE, not CARE/TIRE.
I'm not sure if the NICKA use overlaps here 1-1, but for this system, cryptonyms are only used in security restrictive environments. Sometimes, say a source, you might come to casually reference them as their cryptonym. Although largely it'd be for like, say, sending a cable from your station back to HQ - not the casual use. In those cases there are other names that are still technically "formal" but not cryptonyms, like the Project and Operation titling.
 
Last edited:
Mick West said:
Gallaudet has never claimed any first-hand knowledge of anything unusual other than his daughter's psychic powers. It seems unlikely to be him.
Click to expand...


Admiral Tim Gallaudet confirms that he's testifying on November 13th
Tim has previously said "I'm totally convinced that we are experiencing a Non-Human Higher Intelligence because I know people who were in the legacy programs that oversaw both the crash retrieval and the analysis of the UAP data"


Source: https://x.com/GallaudetTim/status/1850825822514372899



It is possible that another witness is Karl "Zero Doubt" Nell
He claims "to have personally known this", which is a strange wording to use if not claiming first-hand knowledge.
Source:
Source: https://x.com/MikeColangelo/status/1848058828492771552
 
External Quote:
Life is common in the universe
Shame that Mike Colangelo (and if his post is correct, Karl Nell) haven't shared their evidence with any reputable astronomers/ biologists/ NASA/ anyone else conducting checkable scientific research for a respected or competent institution.

Maybe they have the sort of evidence that is best understood by people not very interested in science.
 
BoulderRiver said:
Admiral Tim Gallaudet confirms that he's testifying on November 13th
Tim has previously said "I'm totally convinced that we are experiencing a Non-Human Higher Intelligence because I know people who were in the legacy programs that oversaw both the crash retrieval and the analysis of the UAP data"


Source: https://x.com/GallaudetTim/status/1850825822514372899



It is possible that another witness is Karl "Zero Doubt" Nell
He claims "to have personally known this", which is a strange wording to use if not claiming first-hand knowledge.
Source:
Source: https://x.com/MikeColangelo/status/1848058828492771552
Click to expand...


The Admiral is quoted as saying he knows people who were in those programs, he does NOT say that the told him anything about any of those programs. What does he know? Anything? Or is he just a character witness for those un-named people who were involved in programs that he, the Admiral, knows nothing about.

Way too many people in the believer squad who never commit themselves to actually knowing anything specific and then passing that detailed information along.
 
I agree with MapperGuy.
There's a lot of noise orbiting people who might have been in the known of alleged programs, but all the public got was "Trust me, bro"
Still no evidence, no paper trail, or first-hand knowledge, no silver bullet - Grusch claims it would be illegal to disclose these details on public hearings and requests to relay the specifics on Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) - I have not found evidence that such SCIF took place, but some interested congress members like Mark Greene, Tim Burchett, and Nancy Mace gave enthusiastic interviews weeks/months after the July congressional hearings.

Playing the Devil's Advocate, we've seen this happen more than once on ontological shocks that would lead society to paradigm shifts, most famously the questioning of the Geocentric model proposed initially around 300 BC.

Gallaudet stated on the "UFO Friendly" Newsnation network in an interview with UAP Journalist Ross Coulthart that the planet has been visited by entities he described as "non-human.", believing that the non-human intelligence hypothesis for UAPs is real.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh_h5OUMKIE


TL;DR version:
External Quote:

  • Former Navy admiral believes David Grusch's allegations
  • He states he believes Non-Human Intelligence is Real
  • He says the military covered up UAP encounters during his time in service
  • He says the government should disclose "contact with non-human intelligence"
External Quote:

"We're being visited by non-human intelligence with technology we really don't understand and with intentions we don't understand either"

"One of my jobs in the Navy, I was the chief meteorologist of the Navy at the time when Orion[US Navy Ship] was encountering the UAP off the U.S. East Coast," he said.

"I learn now that these were occurring in training airspace and causing near mid-air collisions. So that safety issue is important," he said. "But the Navy didn't do anything about it. Then they actually pulled back that email from my computer on the secret network."

Gallaudet believes that was part of a cover-up.
Despite his level of seniority in the Navy and NOAA, Gallaudet said he was not put into any UAP programs.

"They're special access programs, very tightly restricted. So you have to look into what one's job is and the need to know," he said.

For classification or clearance at a certain level, Gallaudet explained those two elements are prerequisites to gaining access.

"In my job as oceanographer of the Navy, for example, it really wouldn't have made sense for me to have been read into these crash retrieval programs," Gallaudet said. "it's really kind of a Cold War legacy of over classification."

"What you have going on right now with legacy classify programs, special access programs without Congressional direction and White House policy, that's not going to change," he said.
 
Last edited:
Re. the text usefully quoted by @BoulderRiver (above),

External Quote:

"We're being visited by non-human intelligence with technology we really don't understand and with intentions we don't understand either...
...In my job as oceanographer of the Navy, for example, it really wouldn't have made sense for me to have been read into these crash retrieval programs," Gallaudet said. "it's really kind of a Cold War legacy of over classification."
...So Gallaudet is unlikely to have (and perhaps doesn't claim to have) first-hand information.

There have been Congressional hearings and the report from AARO, but the "believers"- like the supporters of homeopathy- think more inquiries, more investigations will reveal something that supports their beliefs.

External Quote:
I was the chief meteorologist of the Navy at the time when Orion[US Navy Ship] was encountering the UAP off the U.S. East Coast," he said.
There was a USS Orion, a submarine tender, 1943-1993. She served mainly in the Mediterranean Sea from 1980-1993;
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Orion_(AS-18)

I think Gallaudet is more likely referring to the Lockheed P-3 Orion, the United States Navy's venerable (but still useful) maritime patrol/ anti-submarine warfare aircraft. In service from 1962, I don't know if early Orion radar had digital filters.
The Orion is not an AWACS; it's unlikely they (or the tender USS Orion) carried top-notch aerial tracking / air defence radar.
 
They had better not drag Herrera in front of Congress. That dude's story has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Besides the fact many of his claims are comically absurd, I found it quite telling how easily he was swayed by Greer's totally made-up, last-minute reveal about those supposed shipping containers being used for human smuggling.

For anyone who's not up to date on the fabulist claims of Herrera, I'm not going to revisit them in length here, but only days before his appearance at Greer's last D.C. event, his story about the mysterious craft, and the shipping containers he claims to have seen behind loaded on to them, contained no such mention of human trafficking. In fact, by his own account, he had no idea what the contents of the containers were. He was never even close to them, let alone anywhere near enough to see what was supposedly inside. By his own best guess at the time, he supposed that they were possibly being used to smuggle drugs (supposedly because of climate-control attachments that he claims to have seen). But even that was pure speculation on his part.

But then, lo and behold, just a day or two before his speaking engagement at the Greer circus, some "anonymous source" familiar with Herrera's tale supposedly reaches out to Greer (not Herrera) to inform him that, as it turns out, those containers were being used for human trafficking. So then with zero proof (of course), zero corroboration, and zero indication of who this mystery source even was, Herrera then decides to include that update to his own narrative at Greer's event, even becoming emotional in the retelling of it—even though he admitted to just having learned of this update from Greer! It didn't reflect anything that he, himself, saw, or even suspected at the time (if we're to be charitable enough to allow that the event happened at all).

That tells me a few critical things about Herrera:
1) He's easily swayed and manipulated, especially when emotions are in play.
2) He has no problem speaking with authority about something he knows nothing about (he completely trusted an anonymous, last-minute source).
3) He's either a willing dupe in Greer's charade, living in a fantasy world of his own making, or both.
 
Last edited:
"a black triangle encounter on the ground" doesn't seem to even meet the evidential threshold set by the people trying to push the NHI threat narrative.
A short while ago we were looking for "5 observables" to justify a UAP- now someone not recognising a stationary ground based object is enough to warrant hearing time?
 
owntheissue said:
a black triangle encounter on the ground" doesn't seem to even meet the evidential threshold set by the people trying to push the NHI threat narrative.
A short while ago we were looking for "5 observables" to justify a UAP- now someone not recognising a stationary ground based object is enough to warrant hearing time?
Click to expand...

But you don't understand, "it's a Black Triangle!" ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Harabeck
AARO 2024 Annual Report on UAP
Replies
38
Views
3K
FastIndy
FastIndy
C
Leaked UFO footage given to "Strange Mysteries"
Replies
32
Views
2K
Jack Mallory
J
S
Article: "EXCLUSIVE: CIA's secret office has conducted UFO retrieval missions on at least NINE crash sites around the world, whistleblowers reveal"
Replies
20
Views
3K
Gary C
Gary C
MonkeeSage
Comments from Senator Gillibrand on HOC hearing and AARO
Replies
20
Views
3K
Mendel
Mendel
Mick West
  • Locked
David Grusch, Whistleblower, Claims U.S. Has Retrieved Craft and Bodies of Non-Human Origin
11 12 13
Replies
490
Views
95K
Mick West
Mick West

Latest posts

Back
Top